Skip to comments.Ten years ago...What happened in Rwanda and where was the UN then?
Posted on 01/01/2005 12:12:13 AM PST by Robert Lomax
Statictics of the Genocide
Over the course of only 100 days, a stupefying 1,000,000 people were slaughtered.
During this terrible slaughter of the innocent, more than 6 men, women and children were murdered every 60 seconds of every hour of every day. This brutally efficient pace was kept up for more than 3 months.
An estimated 11% of all females, or approximately 535,000 women, living in Rwanda at the time of the genocide were victims of a concerted rape campaign.
During the course of the rape campaign, an average of 4 women were violently sexually assaulted, most of them by HIV+ men, every minute of every hour of every day for 100 consecutive days.
More than 67% of women who were raped in 1994 during the genocide are now facing death from AIDS.
As a direct result of the 100 days of death and violence in 1994 there are more than 60,000 widows living in Rwanda, caring for more than 200,000 orphans.
Otherwise stated, 3.25% of the total Rwandan population are orphans whose parents died from AIDS.
By the end of 2001, there were 500,000 people in Rwanda living with HIV approximately 13% of the population.
That equates to more than 1 out of every 10 people suffering from HIV or AIDS.
Kofi has blood all over his hands for this too.
Where was the Billary Administration? They were busy working with Koffi to keep the word "genocide" out of the official UN report on the situation, if I recall correctly. (If I'm wrong please correct--thanks.)
Where was the media and where was clinton and where was his administration.
I wish I had a copy of the New American article detailing Kofi's perfidy to post. Does anyone?
You're completely right.
1 million people were dying, and there was a Clinton State Department was scared to death of using the word genocide.
Kofi willfully ignored direct reports from the ground that there was a massive genocide underway.
And the drop in CO² emissions was how much? Surely some green wacko scientists have calculated this?
The purpose of the UN is to intervene and prevent such situations--prevent genocide-- and stop regional conflicts from spiralling into mass slaughter without having individual nations do the work and create more conflict. The UN is an utter failure in this regard. And yet the Albright crowd whines when Bush has no use for this organization that exists to spend per diem from their home nations and to give America the finger.
"I wish I had a copy of the New American article detailing Kofi's perfidy to post. Does anyone?"
As close as I could get:
THE NEW AMERICAN: Issues in Focus
The situation in the Sudan that is currently going on is yet another example of how ineffective (i say corrupt .....because IF they wanted to do something they could) the UN is. There people are being enslaved, murdered, mutilated, maimed etc etc, and the UN yet has the time to debaye about including the Sudan in certain committees!
The UN is not ineffective. It is just corrupt. A lot of good could be done if the right people made the right decisions, but for decades it has just been undergoing a series of serious atrophy.
I could talk about Clinton not doing a thing (and yet finding the impetus to go to Kosovo and messing things up there), but he did not have a mandate to do anything about Rwanda. He SHOULD have ...but he was not elected for that. He had a moral obligation, but the US does not HAVE to do anything. It is like the current Tsunami situation in Asia. America is helping ....but it does not HAVE to help. However it is the right/moral thing to do, and it is great that it is doing something (and although the media may not appreciate the amount of money given you can betcha that the starving injured and overwhelmed in the tidal-striken parts of Asia are grateful beyond words. A single dollar goes a long way there).
HOWEVER the UN has a mandate and call to be involved in matters and situations such as the Rwandese and Sudanese scenarios.
And the UN did nothing!
The League of Nations failed in its given mandate with the break-out of the 2nd World War, and it could be as easily said that its successor (the United Nations) failed with the Rwandan massacres (and the failure continues today with the Sudanese situation that has been going on now for years).
And yet the UN has the time to participate in the Oil for Food scandal when Saddam was in power!
They just need more power....and money...
HAPPY NEW YEAR KOFI! (Your son)
The problem as I see it is that any nation can join. Seems to me it would be better for only nations with regularly held free elections, leaving out the tinhorn dictators and totalitarian thugs, with whom a majority of the corruption resides.
A UN made up of the free nations of the world would be strong enough to run things their own way and delegitimize the despots.
It all sounds nice in theory anyway.
More money and/or power would only mean more corruption. I honestly don't know how the entity can be fixed because it only seems to get worse every decade.
And as you say this is precisely the thing the UN was created to deal with, and doesn't. One can only guess why the members are so reluctant to fulfill the organization's purpose.
That was complete sarcasm. I say dismantle the whole global whorehouse.
Because the UN is a globalist pipe dream and is a WAR MAKING mechanism. Totally contrary to is aims.
As the UN has aged, the people appointed to the more senior positions have been more and more socialistic in their outlook and in their actions. It is as if the communistist internationale has been taken over by the UN.
You are correct. The approach was to talk about killing or even murder, but never genocide. In fact, Bill Clinton sent his Secretary of State (Madeline Albright) to the U. N. to argue for delaying any decision for meaningful intervention, thereby allowing the genocide to continue.
What started out as a place to meet and end conflicts has turned into a place that dictates terms of conduct. *&^%$ that.
If it meant a huge war machine (mostly US forces of course) I would have been for debate and discussion, but from all I've read there was already a sufficient force on the ground to prevent the situation BEFORE it got going, and Koffi personally ordered that the commander on the ground (Canadian?) not even threaten or simply protect--being a UN group that's probably all that had to be done. ALbright is a disgrace.
"A 2,500-member United Nations force sought authorization under the United Nations charter to stop the killing. The United Nations commander in Rwanda at the time, Canadian Maj. Gen. Romeo Dallaire, said last month that if he had had the mandate, the massacres would have ceased.
Giving Dallaire the authority and the troops that he requested "could have stopped the whole thing," said Morton Halperin, a National Security Council staff member in 1994,
But the Clinton administration opposed the move. The United Nations had to learn "when to say no," President Clinton said at the time."
(March 26, 1998 NY Times)
Any sourcing to Kofi on this?
Must have been because we're all so stingy.
I dimly recall that the situation was far worse than mere incompetence. I recall that the UN man on the ground said that if they didn't give one of the two tribes weapons (locked up in the African equivalent of gun control), it was going to get massacred, and that Kofi Annan was directly involved in the decision to reject the recommendations of the man on the ground, but I can't find the article that laid it all out anywhere.
After all, what is worse. A few US soldiers putting panties on the heads of susupected terrorists/enemy combatants, or a million dead and millions more maimed, raped and otherwise oppressed. Which is worse .....some soldier breaking protocol and taking pictures of naked prisoners, or thousands of children getting their arms hacked off and millions of women raped?
The UN should be more than ashamed. Especially when they can find the time to root out the earth over a few cases of a few US soldiers breaking rules in some forsaken prison yet apparently have their hands tied when real issues are happening.
I can tell you this. The US is appreciated more than the media would let you believe. True, there are whole regions of the earth that believe the US is evil incarnate (for example virtually all of the Arab world) due to perpetual indoctrination by the theological and political demagogues, however there are many other areas where the common man and woman appreciates the US. For example the Asian situation .....the people receiving bottled water from the US, or hot food, or urgent medication are grateful. In Indonesia for example (which is the world's largest Muslim nation) the imams may be spewing forth anti-American vitriol, and the ruling elite may be harboring views that would not put a smile on Lady Liberty, BUT you can be certain that the people afflicted by the tragedy are grateful.
And while there will always be those who say the US 'should' do more or that it 'has' to do this and that, you should be grateful for that. Why? Because such asinine statements mean that there is something irking them. It is like having your neighbors being envious about your house, spouse, car, occupation etc. It only means that you are blessed more than they are!
Such people (eg the media in the US and Europe, the elite in Europe, liberals in the US, theologues and demagogues in the Middle-East et al) will always have a bone to pick with the US (or any power that is greater than they are). Thus the very fact that they whimper and gripe is a good thing. I'd be more worried if they were to stop.
Good observations though and thanks for posting them.
I just saw the movie Hotel Rwanda and I'm still in shock that the world did nothing. Nothing.
Gen. Dallaire stated that the single most fatal decision leading up to that point was the retreat from Somolia, which gave terrorists the world over the idea that the peacekeepers were a legitimate target and that they would withdraw if attacked. He then stunned the audience (it was a "Peace Conference") by (1) praising the U.S. intervention in Iraq, and (2) praising the American people for tolerating casualties there. Wasn't quite what they'd thought they were going to hear.
He ended his talk with Darfur and an admonition for the U.S. to "kick some asses" in certain prominent UN member countries in order to get them to contribute trained troops to interventions. His own country, Canada, was among them. (The Canadian consul was sitting right there, too - he took it well...)
I'm talking about the whole world..the UN.